CHAS’ REVIEW OFUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, San Diego CaliforniaAnn PRICE et al., v. County of San Diego et al.
January 8, 1998.

In an effort to accomplish this review as quickly as possible (otherwise, it AIN’T gonna get done!),YOU  the READER  FIRST have to become EDUCATED about restraint asphyxia!
If you haven’t already read Parts One and Two of my Restraint Asphyxia – Silent Killer article,
YOU MUST DO THAT FIRST!“RESTRAINT ASPHYXIA  SILENT KILLER”

Furthermore, YOU  the READER  also must FIRST become educated about theFrequently Misinterpreted/Misrepresented Restraint-Related Research
The above LINK will work as soon as I get that review written and posted![Until that happens, however, PLZ KNOW THIS:
The “USCD” study PAID FOR BY the San Diego Deputy District Attorney, Ricky Sanchez, did NOT  in any way  “prove” that restraint asphyxia is not caused by forceful-prone-restraint (with or without hogtie restraint). In fact, that study proved that forceful-prone-restraint DOES cause HEALTHY individuals to suffer difficulty breathing!]

ONCE YOU ARE EDUCATED …
YOU can come to YOUR OWN CONCLUSION about the Price V San Diego case
simply by reading the FOLLOWING NOTES and EXCERPTS from that report!

None of the NOTES reported are derived from anything other than the report.
(CHAS hasn’t stuck in “extra” stuff.)

Quotation marks surround actual QUOTES from the report.

The bold face text segments were bold-faced by CHAS!

Where CHAS inserts some sort of a “comment,” it is surrounded by BRACKETS ([]).

PRICE v SAN DIEGO NOTES & EXCERPTS

On June 28, 1994, two San Diego County Sheriff deputies spent a period of time wrestling Daniel Price (who was “combative” and resisting arrest) into handcuffs while forcefully-prone-restraining him. Soon after that, two more deputies arrived. Because Price was “kicking,” all four deputies assisted in keeping Price forcefully-prone-restrained by placing their “body weight” on top of him (while he was prone), so that hogtie restraint could be applied.After he was hogtied, one deputy “placed a knee in [Price’s] back,” to KEEP him in a PRONE position (while hogtied). Price almost immediately “began to smash his face into the ground.” So, another deputy immediately “placed his foot on the back of Price’s head,” employing enough force to keep Price from moving his head off the ground.“At some point, Price began turning blue, … the deputies noticed Price turning blue. However they did not release him from the hogtie immediately, nor did they administer cardiopulmonary resuscitation (‘CPR’), despite the fact that each of them had CPR training.” At some point, medics were called to the scene. “It appears that Deputy Tally was preparing to release Price [from forceful-prone-hogtie-restraint] and administer CPR when the medics arrived.”When the medics arrived, “Price had no pulse and had stopped breathing.” Medics initiated resuscitation and transported him to the emergency department, where additional resuscitation and life support measures were employed. Price never again regained consciousness.

“On June 30, 1994 Price died.” The legal report does not indicate that Price was maintained on artificial life support between the time of his “original death” (when he became apneic and pulseless during SDSO forceful-prone-restraint) and the time of his June 30th “death.” However, as the legal report does specifically state that Price never regained consciousness after his “original death,” it is reasonable to presume that he only “survived” for two days because of artificial life support measures.

“A county medical examiner, John W. Eisele, MD., conducted the autopsy. Dr. Eisele found low levels of methamphetamine in Price’s system. He also found petechiae (pinpoint) hemorrhaging in Price’s left eye, which suggests that Price’s torso had been compressed. Dr. Eisele listed the cause of death as ‘hypoxic encephalopathy due to restrictive asphyxia with cardiopulmonary arrest due to maximum restraint in a prone position by law enforcement.’”
At trial, “Dr. Eisele testified that Price experienced lactic acidosis. … Dr. Eisele testified that because the hogtie restraint impairs the mechanical process of exhaling, it prevents the body from ‘blowing off’ excess carbon dioxide. … [and] that Price suffered from … an increase in carbon dioxide levels … that, because of the hogtie, Price’s body could not correct.”

“After Price’s death, at the request of defense counsel, Thomas Neuman, M.D., of the University of California at San Diego Medical Center (‘USCD’) conducted a sophisticated study of positional asphyxia and the hogtie restraint. Dr. Neuman found, contrary to Dr. Reay's findings, that blood oxygen levels do not decrease after exercise. Dr. Neuman also found that although the hogtie restraint impairs the mechanical process of inhaling and exhaling to an extent, the hogtie does not affect blood oxygen or carbon dioxide levels. In other words, the impairment is so minor that it does not lead to asphyxia, and in fact has no practical significance. Dr. Neuman explained the disparity between his findings and those of Dr. Reay by describing methodological flaws in Dr. Reay's experiments and logical flaws in Dr. Reay's reasoning.”

[Pretty much, after that point in the report, the CHIT just keeps getting deeper, and more ERRONEOUS!!!]

“The UCSD study, which Dr. Reay concedes rests on exemplary methodology, eviscerates Dr. Reay's conclusions.” [Although it is true that Dr. Reay complemented the UCSD researchers on their study methodology, it is NOT TRUE that Dr. Reay’s previous conclusions or opinions were altered  in any way  by the findings of that study!SEE Hog-Tied Revisited]

“The UCSD study also refutes Dr. Eisele's opinion that the hogtie prevents the lungs from "blowing off" excess carbon dioxide.” [This is KRAPPE! The UCSD study did NOT evaluate individuals who had excessive levels of lactic acid in their systems. Thus, the UCSD study  in NO WAY  “refuted” the fact that persons who can hyperventilate can “blow off” excess acid!]

“After Dr. Reay's retraction, little evidence is left that suggests that the hogtie restraint can cause asphyxia.” [Dr. Reay NEVER “retracted” the opinions or conclusions he reached based upon his previous studies! If you haven’t already,SEE Hog-Tied Revisited]

“Plaintiffs press, however, that the hogtie as applied to Price posed a grave danger. Plaintiffs note that even the UCSD study found that hogtying impairs the mechanical process of breathing to a small extent. Plaintiffs argue that this impairment, combined with Price's girth, caused him to asphyxiate.[UNFORTUNATELY, based ONLY upon Neuman’s misrepresentation of the UCSD study findings during his trial testimony:] “Plaintiffs have failed to prove this alleged fact. Plaintiffs have adduced no reliable evidence that suggests that Price's girth impaired his breathing. Dr. Reay opined that as Price lay prone, his belly may have applied pressure to his lungs, which could have impaired his breathing. However, Dr. Reay admitted that he has no empirical evidence that suggests that lying prone with a large belly can impair breathing to a significant extent. Thus, his testimony was wholly speculative.”